Menu

Donate

These writings help challenge the revisionist narrative and expose lies and antisemitism. They can and do make an impact. However, intensive independent research takes considerable time and is expensive. Please consider making a donation. They really do make a difference.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Corked is a word that defines something special turning rotten. A wine that is flawed due to a damaged or broken cork. In this case, it is perhaps fitting that Oren Ben Dor chose UCC, or University College Cork, as the new site for the failed academic hate-fest from two years ago. The hate fest, the venom, the anti-Israel activism posing as academic thought, the deception, the rush to be top of the ‘Israel hating’ pile. This is what happens when academia is not preserved properly. When unwanted and unsavoury elements are allowed to infest and spoil the natural academic process. The proposed conference is effectively ‘corked’.

What do you do when on the one hand you want to adhere to the strongest principles of free speech, but on the other believe that academia is being used for something illegitimate.

For two years, the organisers of the disgraceful Southampton conference have had the ability to rent the local hall, pull these activists together, and conduct this vile call for the destruction of Israel in private. This is not good enough for them.

Almost all the academics involved are activists. People who are apparently on a mission to bring about the end of the democratic state of Israel. These people, in the vast majority, see Israel as an Apartheid, Nazi-like state. The conference is seen by these people, as part of their activism.

Therefore, it is not the ‘in gathering’ of like-minded people that is important. It is not about the discussion, but rather how the output can best be utilised to further delegitimise Israel and strengthen their personal cause. They need this to be in a university because they must have the academic stamp of approval.

It is that stamp that I believe should be denied them. They have the right to be activists, they have the right to be wrong, they have the right to gather together many hate-minded, vicious and sinister people to create fiction, spread lies, distort history and attempt to pass on whatever nasty disease they have all caught. They just should not be permitted to do this as if it were a legitimate academic exercise.

I have worked on the list of academics. I have updated the list from Southampton, added new material and included the new speakers.

I have also created a table, which is available at the bottom of this article. I think the table highlights precisely why this conference is so troublesome. Almost every single person on the list is an anti-Israel activist.

Out of the 47 present, there are only two who sit on the other side of the fence. Professor Alan Johnson from BICOM and Professor Geoffrey Alderman. Neither had been on the cast list for the original conference at Southampton. They were added later to present some type of Zionist argument when the public outcry began. I imagine the same reasoning is taking place here. In other words they are here to oppose the conference, in their own way.

I believe the action is misplaced. As can be seen from the table below. The concentration of hatred is the best argument against the conference itself. It delegitimises its own position through its clear one sided nature. Their presence, however minimal, dilutes the visible concentration. Because their inclusion isn’t the intent of the organisers, it’s impact is self-defeating.

Additionally, if the academic stamp is the legitimising factor for the organisers, anything that further legitimise the illegitimate is self-defeating. Their presence allows the organiser to declare that the conference was balanced, that Zionists were present, however ridiculous such a statement may be. For these reasons, despite my respect for both these academics, and the work they do, I believe their choice to be in error.

The list of ‘academics’ is present here. There is a table underneath.

IMPORTANT: This is a complicated exercise, that crosses nations, continents and language barriers. I have done my best to ensure accuracy, but especially with academics who produce their work mainly in languages other than English, this is a difficult task to complete. If anyone can provide either corrections or *additions* then please do not hesitate to contact me. I apologise in advance for any errors.

Those speaking at Cork

Dr. Anthony Löwstedt

Media Communications Department, Webster University Vienna

Lowestedt claims that 98% of “all gross human rights violations so far committed in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are sole responsibilities of the Israeli Jews, and talks of Israeli apartheid. In that piece he references “The Israeli state death squads” and claims that ““In many cases, it is enough for a Palestinian to get killed if s/he even looks at a military installation or a soldier the wrong way”. He claims “the supreme goal is to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians from Palestine” although whilst in Israel he “did not get to discuss this matter in detail with Israelis”. Riddled with inaccuracies such as “you must be a Jew to serve in the Israeli army and if you are not a Jew you cannot serve in the army”, distortions and statistical headstands, these pieces indicate that Lowstedt’s opinion is driven fiercely by his internal bias rather than through some academic process of research.

Dr. Azmi Bishara

General Director, Doha Institute of Graduate Studies, and former Member of the Knesset. A name on this list that was not on the list at the original Southampton Conference. Bishara, was once an elected member (MP) of Israel’s Knesset. After the Israel /Lebanon war of 2006, Bishara went to Lebanon and praised the actions of the terrorist group Hezbollah. Bishara is accused of giving Hezbollah information on strategic locations in Israel that should be attacked with rockets during the 2006 Lebanon War, in exchange for huge amounts of money. He fled Israel to avoid trial. Bishara does not just support BDS as a tactic, he discusses the need to “escalate the struggle in Palestine into a full confrontation (uprising / intifada) with the occupation”.

Writes frequently on Palestinian issues in newspapers and magazines. Karmi likes using the term ‘genocide’ or ‘genocidal’. According to the Wiki page, Karmi clearly believes that “Israel does not deserve to continue as a state”. In favour of a one state solution she notes “would be the end of a Jewish state in our region”. Karmi openly calls herself an activist, describing Zionism a “loathsome” ideology. Karmi incredibly declares in the same piece that the radicalization and extremism of Arab societies “can be traced back to Israel.” Apparently another academic with a mental block, she declares there were no pogroms in Arab lands, and actively promotes the boycott.

Dr. Haitam Suleiman

Al-Quds University Jerusalem

Worked together on a paper with Professor Robert Home that suggests Israel’s story now lies ‘within a colonial and postcolonial narrative’ and explains the article is the outcome of field research undertaken by a Palestinian Arab living in Israel (Suleiman).

Adv. Yoella Har-Shefi

Legal adviser for the Ani-Israeli Association and a human rights activist

The International Institute of Social Studies, Erasmus University (EUR)

Suggests companies such as IKEA are complicit in a serious human rights violation, lending support to the settlement enterprise. Apartheid, war crimes, cover-up’s, quite the collection. Handmaker has argued that ‘true humanity’ will be found when “the Israeli regime is held accountable for decades of repression, dispossession and regional destabilisation.” Handmaker has often written for the anti-Israel propaganda rag, the Electronic Intifada.

City Law School, City University of London. Has served as legal advisor to the Negotiations Affairs Department of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Masri is active in supporting the boycott and uses parallels of apartheid to describe the Israeli system.

Dr. Michael Kearney

School of Law, University of Sussex

International Law speech that deals with Israeli ‘apartheid’, an article on Israeli ‘war crimes’. Has spoken of Israel ‘priming for genocide of Palestinians’. Supports boycott. Another academic who served as a researcher for Al-Haq (Dr John Reynolds) along the way to his academic position.

A Lebanese novelist who was not on the list at Southampton. Has a section on his wiki page on his political activism and enlisted in Fatah in the late 1960’s. Openly supports a boycott. Has called Israel ‘Apartheid’. In his work, Khouri suggests Israel needs to suffer defeat (lose a war?) to become ‘human’. Talks of ‘the Israeli Nazi’ going on to argue that Netanyahu. belonging to a “fascist party”, and a ’Neo-Nazi’, follows the “path of [Ze’ev] Jabotinsky” who “did not conceal his fascination of the Nazis.”

Joni Assi

Community arts activist

A difficult one to track down. Also not at Southampton. There is a ‘Joni Assi’ from the An-Najah University, Nablus. Also a Joni Assi from Berzeit. They may be one and the same. There does not seem to be much from Assi in English at all. Certainly not with this spelling.

Israeli who studied in the UK and applied for conscientious objector status and became an activist on her return to Israel. Beyond doing the rounds, being held aloft by those on the other side of the great divide and clearly suited to the agenda, one can only ask academically, what she is doing there.

Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM). One of two academics who have chosen to come and present an argument for Israel because it is a biased conference. Not originally on the list for Southampton, but then added once the public uproar about the one sided nature had begun.

Professor Brad Roth

College of Liberal Arts & Science and School of Law, Wayne State University

Actively supported a boycott. There was little online when I compiled the list for Southampton, and not much has changed since.

Professor Cheryl Harris

School of Law, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA)

Another not on the list for Southampton. Harris is Harris Rosalinde and Arthur Gilbert Professor in Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Took part in a one day conference at UCLA called “the pedagogical challenges of teaching Palestine at the university”, with her speech described by Campus Watch as “not only paranoid, but groundless.” Seems only to have joined the anti-Israel bandwagon at this point.

Professor Geoffrey Alderman

Politics and Contemporary History, University of Buckingham

Geoffrey Alderman is the second academic not to fit the anti-Israel mould of the conference. Like Johnson his presence is an act of defiance in the face of an anti-Israel tsunami.

Centre for Media Studies, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS)

Another scholar who is a self-described activist. In a piece that I am sure even he may consider foolish today Bresheeth states that Israel can only be explained by the many decades of instrumental colonialism, a place where to be ‘pro Israeli’ is to be foolish. That Israel will only relent under the most intense political, financial and cultural pressure from the world community. That pressure is now developing swiftly, and is now more likely than ever to lead to the collapse of the apartheid state in the Middle East. Actively supported the boycott. In the two years since Southampton, I saw Bresheeth at an Ilan Pappe event. He spoke of the need to entirely dismantle every element of Zionism. Also compares Israeli behaviour to the way Nazis treated Jews.

Professor Ilan Pappe

Department of History, University of Exeter

Hardly needs an introduction, also described as an activist. I have seen Pappe perform at several events, and for extremism, he rarely disappoints. He pushes BDS at every opportunity. He is the author of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (2006). Firmly believes Israel is racist, apartheid, an ethnically cleansing state and so on. Suggests Israel has committed genocide. Admits BDS was not a call from within. Just as importantly the video highlights Pappe seems willing to hide the truth when necessary. Also stated “indeed the struggle is about ideology, not about facts”. Of Pappe, Benny Morris said this: “At best, Ilan Pappe must be one of the world’s sloppiest historians; at worst, one of the most dishonest. In truth, he probably merits a place somewhere between the two.”

Another academic from SOAS, he states here he is “generally wary of academic boycotts“, so it would be interesting to know how he voted in the recent SOAS wide boycott vote that saw a 60-40% split amongst ‘SOAS staff’. Heller not as rabid as his colleagues, but still maintains a clear fascination with tweets such as “Israel doesn’t need tunnels. It sows #terror through bombs, artillery, missiles, tanks, ground troops”.

Professor Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian

Faculty of Law/Institute of Criminology and the School of Social Work and Public Welfare, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Frequently described as a Palestinian activist online. Supports the general divestment and the academic boycotts. Quotes Tutu in his paper Remembering the Palestinian Nakba: “Israel was practicing apartheid in its policies towards the Palestinians”

Professor Oren Ben-Dor

Law School, University of Southampton, UK

Oren Ben-Dor is in my opinion one of the ‘darkest’ characters at the conference. One of the organisers and ‘hosts’ for the event, he has claimed “Israeli Apartheid is the Core of the Crisis”, going on of course to claim “Only when this realization sinks in will it be possible to envision a stable political solution–a single state over all historic Palestine”. Ben Dor actively supports the boycott and another piece against the silencing of Gilad Atzmon, provide a wonderful insight into the hypocrisy and double standards of leading academics who promote the Israeli boycott. But it is in his discussions on Jewishness, the holocaust and Nazis, that Ben Dor takes the reader into some truly dark places. There is a 25 minute video, that is highly disturbing for those with the stomach to watch. This single quote “”It is the denial that there is something so Jewish in that which has provoked the holocaust, and the dealing with which has been so successfully postponed by the holocaust”, should provide much food for thought. It should be remembered that it is this academic, fixated with ‘Jewishness’, that has been the driving force for this conference to take place.

Professor Penny Green

School of Law, Queen Mary University of London

Not sure where to start with this one. Was not at Southampton. Considers Israeli government ‘criminal’ and openly calls for boycott. Perhaps the worst signal of Green’s standing in the Israel hating community was the notorious UNHRC shortlisted her for a 6-year term as the world body’s investigator of “Israel’s violations.” Has compared Israel to Apartheid and Islamic State. She asked why the UK did not ‘bomb Israel’.

Professor Richard Falk

Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Research Fellow of the Orfalea Centre of Global Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara

Another one that needs little introduction, with his own personal wiki section on the conflict. Has compared Israel’s policies to the Nazi’s and wrote an article called “Slouching toward a Palestinian Holocaust”. Actively supports the boycott, calling it a ‘civic duty’. His latest book ‘Palestine Horizon: Toward a Just Peace’, is about to be published.

Professor Robert Home

Law School, Anglia Ruskin University

He worked together on a paper with Haitam Suleiman, that suggests Israel’s story now lies ‘within a colonial and postcolonial narrative’. At Southampton, they were presenting the paper together. At the present time, the full programme is not up for the conference at Cork, and so I cannot be sure if this is the intention this time.

Professor Robert Wintemute

Law School, King’s College London

Wintemute is one of the new arrivals to this conference. He certainly has supported the rights of BDS. Has signed on petitions for the academic boycott. I think the most important element of Wintemute’s position is detailed in a post he made concerning Israeli LGBT rights. He states he has ‘taken up’ the Palestinian cause and goes on “in 2010, I stopped citing positive developments in Israeli law with regard to LGBT human rights. They add relatively little to developments elsewhere and, in my opinion, are overwhelmed, tainted and discredited by Israel’s negative record on Palestinian human rights.” Not only does this self-identify Wintemute as an activist, it discredits the academic position entirely. Presents “legal backing” for Israel as an “apartheid state” during Apartheid week on campus.

Professor Ugo Mattei

Distinguished Professor of Law, and Alfred and Hanna Fromm Chair in International and Comparative Law, University of California, Hastings College of the Law

Signed the ‘One State Declaration’ (A call for the end of Israel). For those who still fail to grasp this position, Israel will not voluntarily choose to end itself. Those pushing for this, intentionally or not, are calling for the total and violent destruction of the Jewish State and the genocide of all those Jews who would try to defend it.

Professor Virginia Tiley

Professor of Political Science, Southern Illinois University Carbondale

Another dark character who I have seen speak at events in the two years since Southampton. Author of a book A Threat from Within: A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism. Claims Israel’s ‘turn to the right’ is now termed fascist by ‘the mainstream’ and Israel has “become a beacon for right-wing movements around the world thanks to a gamut of ideological, political, economic and military values contained in political Zionism”. Has stepped up his anti-Zionist activity since Southampton. Was recently in the UK to promote his latest book, ‘What is Modern Israel’. Fights against the anti-Semitic label of the boycott. Talks at BDS events about Israeli ‘Apartheid’. Uses this quote in his latest book “As long as hundreds of Palestinians are not being lined up and shot, but are killed by Israelis only one a day, are we Jews free from worrying about morality, justice? Has Nazism become the sole norm by which Jews will judge evil, so that anything that is not its exact duplicate is considered by us as morally acceptable? Is that what the Holocaust has done to Jewish moral sensibility?”

Professor Yosefa Loshitzky

Centre for Media Studies, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS)

The academics are the ones listed in full on the event website. The institutions, where relevant are those listed on the same page.

I chose to highlight four separate indicators of the contributor’s activity with regards to their attitudes on the Israel /Arab conflict.

Once again. This is a complicated exercise, that crosses nations, continents and language barriers. I have done my best to ensure accuracy, but especially with academics who produce their work mainly in languages other than English, this is a difficult task to complete. If anyone can provide either corrections or *additions* then please do not hesitate to contact me. I apologise in advance for any errors.

BDS:

Whether the contributor had at any point signed up for any level of BDS activity, or contributed inside a setting that was promoting BDS. I do not distinguish between boycott of settlements and boycott of Israel, because the BDS movement does not distinguish them.

Activist:

Sometimes this was simple, Pappe for example, self -describes as an activist. Performance in a non-academic setting, such as promoting the cause inside a Palestine Solidarity Campaign meeting is taken as activism. So too is continually writing for outlets such as Electronic Intifada.

Apartheid:

The first of two columns that delegitimise the academic standing of the activist. Israel is not an Apartheid State. Israel controls the lands it captured during a war in 1967, which includes those people who were living there. This is a conflict situation between competing claims. To attempt to apply the Apartheid label to Israel, is to highlight that activism, rather than academia is the driving force of their output. As Israel is not, nor can it be described as Apartheid, then the attempt to label it as such is a strategic move in the delegitimisation campaign. If the vast majority (over 71%%) of those participating, have incorrectly applied this label, solely because it is strategically important for their ’cause’ for them to do so, then this figure ably highlights the lack of academic honesty present at the conference.

Genocide / Nazi

The second column that destroys the academic standing of the conference. Israel, despite the headlines it receives, is a low intensity conflict, with relatively few casualties. Not far from Israel, more people are dying in months, than have died in this conflict since 1967. Israel’s own casualty figures, show that the conflict is two-sided. Therefore, any attempt to use the word ‘genocide’ or to compare Israeli actions to those of the Nazis clearly shows that the person responsible has no clear analytical frame of mind on the subject of Israel. I chose not to distinguish between referencing genocide in a discussion about Israel and clearly describing Israel’s activities as matching Nazi behaviour, even though, in most current definitions of antisemitism, the Nazi comparison crosses the line.

Download table

I think the image of the hate-fest is clearly shown in the table itself. The table is provided for download. If re-used, please credit with a link back to this website. CORK1

Follow, like, donate

Please if you can, consider making a donation. Mine is an independent action and research is expensive and time consuming. Even producing just one of these piece does take days, sometimes weeks, and whilst I do what I can, there are serious constraints that impact on what is possible. Your assistance can and does make a difference. Every contribution is greatly appreciated.

Firstly, we must all thank David for this massive piece or research and sourced information.

Secondly, the pro-Israel/Jew/Zionist must not be intimidated by this list of the 5th column. I have counted 6 Jewish names in the list of guest speakers. The 5th Column.

If we are to learn from history, a good starting point would be the Russian Revolution 1917. Many Jews became quite sucked in and senior in the hierarchy such as Kaganovitch. Similarly , many Jews in this century are being sucked in to an ideology that left-wing politics is right. If the anti-Israel brigade, with it’s dissident Jews, ever succeeded in their mission, the violence and control of the Arabs in the middle will result in a civil war. These idealists really believe that if they ‘conquer’ the Jewish homeland everything will be ‘hunky dory’. No it will not. The Sunnis and the Shia will start fighting for a position of power leading to a country of secularism and bloodshed.

As for the ‘hackneyed’ description of Israel as Apartheid let me put this to the reader. Desmond Tutu was sponsored by the anti-Israel supporters to ‘see for himself’ the plight of the Palestinians. He described their conditions as like Apartheid. Having had an all expenses paid trip to Israel what was he suppoused to say? What an amazing achievement Israel is with it’s pluralism, democracy, religious tolerance and gay rights?

Great research, David. I fear like you that the voices of the two pro Zionist delegate’s will be drowned out completely by the other participants, even if they get given any reasonable hearing or time at all.

Where do I begin ?
I would just say this. How is it that you spend so many hours researching information for your blog exposing those who wish to delegitimise and bring down not just the Israeli government but Israel itself, when we have people in our own community (I will not mention their names yet (report being released soon ) Who literally stand on the side of the same BDS argument calling for the end of the current government in Israel, calling for the end of settlements, working towards a third state solution in the W Bank calling for a two state solution without the recognition of a Jewish state of Israel , then go to demonstrations rallying against the United Nations 2334 resolution ?
There is more but I won’t go into it here

We can list name of the name of the name of those people who wish to see the eradication of Israel and the annihilation of the Jewish people but until we expose our own who are doing the same and sitting on two sides of one fence I don’t see an end

Whilst he is more critical of Israeli policies than I would be, he does at least seem to recognise Israel’s right to exist, also that “While there are honorable Anti-Zionist positions they are few. On the whole Anti-Zionism is close to, or a mask for, Anti-Semitism.”